 What a delight it is we get to hear from David Stockman now. He was elected Michigan Congressman in 1976. He joined the Reagan White House in 1981. And while he was budget director there, he's one of the key architects of the Reagan Revolution. And they're planned to reduce taxes, cut spending, and shrink the role of the government. So, he left there in 1985 to join Salmon Brothers and later became one of the early partners of the Blackstone Group. So we're looking forward to hear from David Stockman. Thank you. Well, thank you. Speaking of the Reagan Revolution, it was a plan. Unfortunately, we ran into a few obstacles along the way. Quite a few as a matter of fact. But at the time, it did make a difference. It did stop the momentum of big government and stateism and all the rest of it. So it was one of those intervals in history where there were great possibilities. They didn't really materialize. And so I'm here today to tell you, all you hardcore libertarians here, that the time has come for something big to change. And I'm pitching the candidacy of Robert Kennedy Jr. as the instrument of that. And of course, Robert Kennedy has supported every single scoundrel that the Democrats have put on their tickets since George McGovern in 1972. He likes regulation so much that he spent his whole career as a class action lawyer trying to make regulation even tougher and more extensive in the APA, more powerful. He drank such big gulps of the Kool-Aid on the so-called climate change hoax that he actually at one point said he thought the Green New Deal would be even greater than the original New Deal, which we all know is not something we would want to emulate. And so with all of that history, I'm here to tell all of you libertarians that Robert Kennedy is our man. Now that tells you about where we are in the history of this country. Then again, I have to admit that I've always been a contrarian. And lately I've gotten so contrary that besides a few of my private subscribers that I have, there are only four publications left in the whole country that will publish my work. LouRockwell.com, the Ron Paul Institute, the antiwar.com, and the Kennedy Beacon, which is the house organ of the super PAC that's been organized to support his candidacy. I mean, I couldn't get a piece placed in the Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg or CNBC or the rest of them for the life of me, but the Kennedy Beacon has been publishing my stuff on and off for the last few weeks because somehow issues are coming together and the confluence that I think is totally unique, totally different from our recent decades of history and will make a big difference, I hope, as we go forward. Moreover, that's not really the half of it. I have to give a full disclosure. I've kind of mentioned it, but I have actually been in steady conversation with Robert Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, off and on now for several months after he declared his candidacy, and it all started one day when I got a phone call and there was a voice on the other end and said, hi, this is Bobby Kennedy. And I said, what fruitcake is calling me? I couldn't believe it. And then I heard the gravelly voice after 30 seconds or so and I realized it was him. And he said, well, I just want to say right up front, I've spent three decades denouncing everything you ever did in public life and everything you've ever written, everything that you stand for, but I've noticed lately that we're coming into substantial agreement on a lot of issues. And I said, well, I'm glad to hear that. I want to help, but where have you seen my works? I mean, I only get published in obscure libertarian journals way on the marginal edge of the world. And he said, well, I've had your article sent to me by Bill Bonner. I said, oh, my God. If you all know Bill Bonner, he's more of a screaming libertarian than I am. And so I'm saying to myself, what is Bobby Kennedy doing, talking to Bill Bonner? And it turns out that he was sending Kennedy a lot of things I'm writing on war and peace and the Fed and all the other bad things going on. But still, it seemed a moment to me to have the son of the first family of big government in America, which goes all the way back to Joe Kennedy, who a lot of you know was a new dealer. In fact, he was Roosevelt's big supporter and buddy, and Roosevelt put him as a head of the SEC on the theory that take a crook to find all the rest of the crooks. And so that's how Joe Kennedy became part of the New Deal and head of the SEC. But in any event, why is the scion of this great big government democratic multi-generation family wanting to talk with a guy who spent the last 30 or 40 years denouncing the New Deal, the Great Society, all of the works of the Nanny State Regulators on issues across the board? And why is he contacting me through another guy who's even a more vociferous opponent of all that stuff than myself, which is to say Bill Bonner? And so it kind of brought to mind a ballot I liked. Back in the 60s, I was a radical. In the 60s, anti-war, SDS. I was one of the founders of SDS, actually. I've never admitted that before, but might as well say it among friends. But we had a, there was a great ballot that Bob Dylan put out. And some of you may remember the tune, but it basically went, there's something going on here, but you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones? Well, it was Mr. Jones then, but I would say it's Mr. Uniparty today. In other words, what is happening, I believe, is the Uniparty finally, the two parties that essentially have constant fights but support on the core, the Fed, the warfare state, massive debt, big government, and endless meddling inappropriately in our lives. The Uniparty is finally starting to come on stock. That happened in a big way in the last couple of weeks, as the House Republicans threw out a speaker for the first time, and I don't remember how many decades, and they can't even seem to find one that they can elect or who will even volunteer for the job now. So they're starting to come on stock, and I think that what can really happen here with the independent candidacy of Robert Kennedy now, especially on the issues that he will be driving, is that we could end up with an election that ends up in the House of Representatives because no one gets a majority in the Electoral College. He would only have to win New Hampshire or a couple other states, which I think might be possible, for the first time since 1824. Now, I think there is likely to be a lot of refugees from both parties who are sick and tired of their party's role, the Republican wing or the Democratic wing of the Uniparty on some fairly big issues, and we kind of have a moment where the candidates, as it seems at the moment, of the two wings of the Uniparty are truly pathetic. Okay, I mean, there's no other way to say it. Trump is not remotely a Republican or conservative. I'm going to give you a little data on that for a moment. In a moment, and Biden may not be even compostmentous, as far as we can tell from day to day. So when you have that set of choices with kind of the mystique and the power of the Kennedy name and then the issues, people are sick and tired of wars, they're sick and tired of inflation, they're sick and tired of Washington games and paralysis that accomplishes nothing, that it might be possible to kind of wean away, chip off from the totals of both parties, enough votes to make a real big difference. Now, before I give some of the math that I think is involved in that, I do, you know, I have to take my swipe at Donald Trump. I'm sorry, Trump has one redeeming virtue. He had all the right enemies, okay? When you have CNN and the Washington Post and the New York Times, the guy can't be all bad when you have enemies like that. Unfortunately, his policies were really bad, and I don't even think the full extent of how bad those policies were has yet been, you know, fully laid out. So I have just finished, this is where all of these two sides of the political spectrum coming together strangely happens, but I've just finished the draft and it will be out soon of a book called Trump's War on Capitalism, and basically I'm trying to expose him as a policy fraud from a, you know, free market, conservative, sound money, fiscal rectitude point of view. But the only reason I mention it is that my publisher in this case is Sky Horse Publishing, who is the owner of Sky Horse Publishing, Tony Lyons, is the chairman of Robert Kennedy's campaign, okay? And he actually published that great book that Kennedy wrote a year ago on the reel at Anthony Fauci. I mean, that was a blockbuster, that book, and it actually sold millions and millions, and I think it's partly responsible for the, you know, the public waking up to the status disaster that was underway during the lockdowns, all of which Trump was wholeheartedly for back then. But in any event, not to give away all the content or get off the track too far, but I just want to tell you the facts and the data are overwhelming. And in the book, I go through every kind of measure you might want to look at. And I put it all, by the way, in constant $20, $23, so it's all apples to apples. I used wherever I could ratios to the larger economy, GDP or personal income, other things of that sort, and compared all the presidents going all the way back to Truman, and I'll tell you when you see the book on every one of these measures, when you go from good to mediocre to bad, Trump is on the bottom of the list, or if you like to talk about excess growth of things, he's on the top. When it comes to total spending, when it comes to increase in the debt, when it comes to the deficits as a size of GDP, and especially when it comes to monetary policy, there has never been, as far as I can tell, an interest rate that was low enough in Donald Trump's estimation. It was terrible what he did during the period where there was at least a slight chance that the Fed might attempt to retreat from the nonsense that Bernanke unleashed in 209 through 212, but as they tried to shrink their balance sheet and get interest rates back to normal, he was on their case constantly, you know, really in a way that we haven't seen in decades. And how can you have a Republican president asking for the Fed to print money like there's no tomorrow? But the data that comes out of the book, just to hit it quickly, that really struck home to me. I've got all the presidents listed, and I put Kennedy Johnson together, and Nixon Ford, and so it's all pretty fair. But what really struck, stood out to me was the comparisons between the Trump period and Jimmy Carter. And the reason I mention this is that I sort of cut my eye teeth as a congressman fighting tooth and nail against the Carter energy program, the Carter budgets, Carter macroeconomics programs and so forth. And as far as we felt back in those early days of the 1980, Carter was the worst. Big spender, you know, et cetera, et cetera. Well, here's just a taste of it. I want to give you a couple of the metrics in here to give you some idea. One thing I looked at was constant-dollar spending growth per year for each administration back to Truman. In Trump's case, it was $365 billion, same dollars now. In Carter's case, it was $70 billion. So that was like six to one. And these are constant $20, $23, so it's not playing with inflation. When it came to spending growth, 7% a year in real terms under Trump, 3.5% under Carter. When it comes to the deficit as a share of GDP, it's one good metric about how far off the deep end we are. Trump's deficits averaged 9% of GDP. Jimmy Carter, the big spender, the big borrower, the guy who was ruining the country, his deficits averaged 2.3% of GDP. And when it comes to the ultimate problem here, our national debt, which is really ultimately sinking the economy, Trump added an average of $2 trillion a year. Jimmy Carter, and these are constant dollars. Again, I'm not playing with inflation, added $100 billion. So that's 20 times. And you can go through this. There's a lot more where that came from. And then that's just the fiscal, the monetary I've mentioned. The lockdowns were a horrendous attack on the Constitution, on economic sanity, you know, they can't be forgiven for that reason alone. He shouldn't be the nominee. And the trade protectionism, you know, it was so primitive and unhinged, the border walls, we need immigrant workers. We should have a, yes, worker program. It should be orderly and organized, but we shouldn't be building walls, et cetera. So if you put all that together, it adds up to something that isn't really an alternative. So the question is, if we're heading towards in, you know, in 19, or in 2024, something that looks like 1824, you know, why am I saying that and is that possible? Well, there's plenty of votes to peel off from both wings of the Uniparty, but let's just think of what happened in recent times. You know, Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992, and TR, Teddy Roosevelt, going back to 1912, got 28%. If you put it in today's size, today's context, that would amount to 35, that range, would amount to 35 to 50 million votes in a 2024 election that we can expect about 170 million voters. Now that would be a message. That's the first point. That would be a thundering message. The second thing is, you know, the way the 12th Amendment is written, if someone doesn't get a 270 electoral votes, it goes to the House of Representatives. And in the House of Representatives, they vote by state, not by numbers or not by, you know, a proxy for U.S. population. And that's where I would like to see this end up. In the House of Representatives, there would be a hell of a battle. And we would finally have a chance to get on the table all of the issues that are now being swept under the rug by the Uniparty and its pretension that it's actually competing with each other. Now, why is Robert Kennedy the man to do this? Well, if some of you remember your history, you might recall that John Quincy Adams won, became president in 1824 in the House of Representatives, even though he didn't have the largest number of electoral votes. And he basically famously said something which is the heart of the issue that we're confronting with today, I think. And that was, remember, he said, America should be a friend to all, an ally to none, and it should never go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. That's the essence of the current foreign policy of the United States. That's the essence of what the Uniparty in Washington is all about. They're constantly looking for monsters to destroy. The latest one, of course, is, well, forget about the events of the last week, but before that was obviously Putin, who got demonized because the mainstream media said that Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016 due to Putin's little minions sending messages out on Facebook. I mean, that is really one of the stupider things that have come down the pike in terms of our political discourse in this country. But the thing is that Trump derangement syndrome that came out of that is the reason why the Democratic Party, which used to be the peace wing, the peace party, is now dominated by neocons and war hawks and servants of the military industrial complex. And when the Democrats are on board and the Republicans are more or less dominated by the neocons, you have a pretty bad situation. Now, I can't emphasize enough how out of control the warfare state is. And by the warfare state, I mean not just the DOD budget, but all the international security assistance, state department operations, national endowment for democracy, the international broadcasting operations, which are really propaganda operations, you put all that together and today it amounts to 1.3 trillion. That's what's embedded in the budget today. And if you put that in context of history, I think I can give you a pretty easy example that tells you how far off the deep end we've come. In 1961, when Eisenhower gave his famous farewell address, he was confronting the Soviet Union that still had some industrial vigor. It still had 50,000 tanks on the central front. It still had thousands of nuclear warheads pointing in our direction. So it was a perilous time in the world. But Eisenhower said even then his final budget of $50 billion was more than enough to provide for the security and safety of the United States. Well, that's dollars of those days. But if you put it in today's dollars, that amounts to $400 billion. And if you put the rest of it in for the veterans and international security assistance and so forth, it's $500. So in today's dollars, Eisenhower said we are secure, we are safe, we are doing what we need to do with $500 billion. And these clowns in Washington today in the Uniparty say the 1.3 trillion that's already in the budget isn't enough and they're having these rearguard fights constantly for even more. Now, the point about this is not simply that that's way too much. It's like some kind of huge economic waste, which it is. The point about this is that it is a very insidious corrupt system and you have $1.3 trillion flowing into the economy, into the Beltway, into the think tanks, into the NGOs, into the military industrial complex contractors. It creates an enormous force for self-perpetuation. I call it the self-licking ice cream cone. In other words, you don't even have to ask what the policy choices are for this monster national security establishment because it's already paid for its next budget in the form of all the loose change. When you're spending 1.3 trillion, far, far in excess that anything that's even remotely rational, there's dollars dropping everywhere that are being spent basically to create the case for perpetuation and for continuing even more. What you have then is a system that is self-perpetuating and that brings to the top in both parties people who, you know, for ideological reasons or philosophical reasons or psychological, demented reasons, think that our job is to rule the world. Our job is to be the hegemon. Our job is to be the gender arm of the world economy and political system. And so you get people like Lindsey Graham who's nuts. I mean, he's just playing a screaming madman or Tom Cotton or McConnell the other day. You know, he said the most important priority we have today when they were having their last phony crisis over the continuing resolution, the very most important thing we're doing today is Ukraine. Well, I mean, is the guy ever looked at history? Is he ever looked at the map? Does he understand that in Russian, Ukraine means borderlands? Does he understand that that whole territory for hundreds and hundreds of years was either a vassal or part of the greater Russia? That the country is divided between Ukrainian nationalists and Poles in the west and Russian speakers and Russian identifiers in the Donbas in the south, which was called Novo Rusya, and that they don't want to be together. This was a state not built to last. There was no borders of Ukraine until 1922 when Lenin said, we're going to put Novo Rusya into Ukraine as a matter of, you know, administrative convenience. And then Stalin came along and they were busting up Poland during World War II and he said we'll grab, you know, the territories of the west around Lviv and make that part of Ukraine. And then the big one that I like is Khrushchev came along, big fight for the succession after Stalin died. He got some important support from the Politburo members from Ukraine. So he said, okay, your door prize is you get Crimea. So we're supposed to have a World War III to help the Ukrainian government get back Crimea that's 89% Russian and has never been part of the Ukraine anyway throughout history except the Presidium in 1954 went along with Khrushchev in his, you know, political process. So that's kind of what's built up in the culture and you have all of these leaders of both parties. If you look at them, I remember when I really truly was, I didn't make this up when I was in SDS. We looked to all those great doves in the Democratic Party from Fulbright and Church and all the rest of them as leaders of the peace movement and now you can't find one including Bernie Sanders. They ask him about Ukraine and he double talks and ducks and runs away. So that's how bad this whole thing has become. Now the second reason why it's so bad, and by that I mean the warfare state, the consensus in favor of searching the globe for monsters to destroy, the consensus, the deal con consensus that were the hegemon of the world is that it creates a mighty log rolling process that is destroying this country fiscally. And I'll give you a couple of points, data points about that before I finish but there was an event in recent years that I think tells you how bad this really is. Now the heart of the fiscal problem, of course, is the entitlement of Social Security, Medicare and all the rest and the Republicans have become total chickens on that. In fact they're even now saying, you know, we're not even going to touch it. That's the Donald Trump line. We don't touch Medicare. We don't touch Social Security. Well, if you look at a 10-year budget horizon, which is how they commonly look at it, total spending projected is 80 trillion, 34 trillion of that is Medicare and Social Security. And they're giving it a pass and they want more defense and they have to pay the interest and they have to pay for the veterans that they've put into the position that they're in, disabled or needing government compensation. And yet they're going to give a complete pass to Social Security and Medicare including not even talking about means testing when the fact is there's a huge transfer payment element in that people didn't earn in their payroll taxes and shouldn't be getting now because we can't afford it. Anyway, they do nothing about that but you would think in this one little 15% corner of the budget that you hear about all the time called non-defense discretionary spending. And this is, you know, things like the Education Department, community development grants, housing subsidies of one type or another. You would think at least there the Republicans would go to town to try to pay for some of their massive defense spending by reallocating some dollars. Well, here are the facts. In 2017, this is the last Obama budget, fiscal 2017, we spent $610 billion in non-defense discretionary. In 2021, the last Trump budget, we spent $900 billion in non-defense discretionary. In other words, it went up 48% in the very part of the budget where these Republican fiscal chicken littles should have at least taken a swipe given the fact that they controlled the veto pen during that period and given the fact that they controlled one or both houses of Congress during that period of time. So if you want a confession, a de facto confession written in budgetary ink, look at that. During that four-year period with all the leverage that you could imagine, they ended up raising that part of the budget that half of them say they're not four anyway by nearly 50% and why did they do that? Because that was the trade-off with the Democrats and the domestically oriented people to get these massive defense budgets. Now, the fiscal situation as a result of this dynamic and obviously there's a lot more to it, but the fiscal situation has gotten so bad that I didn't, you know, I was going to bring a bunch of charts for this screen here today, but it has gotten so bad that I don't think a chart is going to, you know, do the job anymore. It's not, you know, everybody's jaundice from seeing this. It goes up and up and up and up and somehow nothing is done. But I've come up with a few numbers riffs which I think you can almost remember. You can almost memorize that in a very succinct and powerful way to tell you how bad this is gone. My first riff is 1 trillion, 33 trillion, 55 trillion, 100 trillion. So, 1, 33, 55, 100. What is that? When I became budget director, the first fight we had was to try to prevent the public debt from going over 1 trillion and we were petrified that that was going to happen. It was almost like, are we going to turn into a pillar of salt? You know, if the public debt goes over 1 trillion, that was then, 1981. Today it's 33 trillion in the bank. It's happened. It's being serviced 33 and a half trillion. The 52 trillion number is what CBO says at the end of the current 10-year horizon the public debt will be. And that's based on Rosie's scenario. They say for 10 years, no recessions. For 10 years, nothing goes wrong in the economy. For the next 10 years, the weighted average cost of interest on this towering public debt will be 3%. Do you believe that? Because today, trade rebuilds are 5%. Today, 10 years in the 30 years, 4.5 to 5. So, where are they coming up with 3? In other words, if you reprice this for all kinds of things we won't go into here for the real world, it's going to be far more than 55 trillion baked into the cake by early in the next decade. And the 100 trillion is where I'm certain will be long before the turn of this century. So what you can say is we've gone to 100 from 1 to 100 in less than 70 years. Now that tells you, in some very graphic way, how far out of control this is but that's where we're heading unless we have some kind of huge breakdown of this uniparty system. Another example that I think indicates how seriously out of control this is and the Fed, of course, is the enabler of all of this. If they hadn't monetized trillions and trillions of debt, we wouldn't be nearly, I don't think we'd be nearly in the soup that we're in today. But here's what happened in the last two decades. If you go back to 207, right before the financial crisis, the public debt was about 5 trillion. If you go to late 2019, right before the COVID crisis, the public debt was 17 trillion. And notwithstanding almost tripling of the public debt during that period, the weighted average cost of yield, interest on the public debt from 30-day bills to 30-year bonds was 2.5%. Now does that sound like the real world? It doesn't sound like the real world to me. That was the Fed world. That was interest rates that were steered, pegged, forced lower by the massive bond buying of the Fed. But my real point is this. After 2019, when we went into this crazy, lockdown COVID mania, 6 trillion worth of relief spending, at the end of that period, we had actually spent 9 trillion dollars. We had added to the debt, I'm sorry, 9 trillion dollars. And guess where interest rates went as we added 9 trillion dollars to the public debt? Instead of going way up, which is what the market would normally do when supply and demand intersect in that way, interest rates by March 2022, right before the Fed finally pivoted and said we're going to got a little inflation problem here, interest rates on average on the treasury debt, the whole damn thing, were 1.5%. Now how in the world do you ever expect that politicians are going to do anything about the public debt or about the size of deficits when the cost of carry is 1.5% which is totally, you know, unreal world, not sustainable, a violation of every economic principle there is. So that's, you know, part of a dimension of the problem, but I want to give one other number which I think is quite striking and that is we just closed the books on fiscal 23, 2023 a few days ago and it turns out that the deficit came in roughly at 2 trillion if you take out some of the Mickey Mouse in the numbers and that was the culmination of a four-year period. Now I'm talking about fiscal 20, 21, 22, 23, four years in which 9 trillion was added to the public debt in those four years, 2.5 from Trump, 1.5 from Biden, but 9 trillion in four years. Now how do you even, that actually adds up to 6.5 billion of red ink every day if anybody's got their hand calculator it's 2.4 million of red ink every minute for four years running, weekdays, Sundays, holidays, snow days, all the rest of it and to put it in historical perspective the question I had as I was writing the other day is well how long did it take us to get the first 9 billion or 9 trillion, I'm sorry if we got another 9 trillion in this four-year period at a rate of 6.5 billion a day the answer is it took us 220 years from the opening of the US government it took 43 presidents to get us to 9 trillion of public debt in July 207 and here we are now adding a 9 trillion in four years and it's actually getting worse as we look into the future. So then the question is who was the enabler of this? The answer is the Fed. We were talking before that Milton Friedman for all his genius and all of his correct views about free markets and the price system and a lot of things was dead wrong about money. But he basically paved the way for Bernanke to do what he did in 207, 208 because it was all based on Friedman's view of what happened in 1930, 31, 32 none of which was accurate. But in any case, even if you give Milton Friedman the benefit of the doubt he said well the money supply should not grow more per year on average over time than the growth capacity of the economy. Well that happens to be let's just say 3% to take an arbitrary number I think most people would say that's not bad. Well if we go back to the time that Greenspan and he's the great enabler became Fed chairman the balance sheet of the Fed was 250 billion dollars it had taken from 2013 to get there to 250 billion had they grown that balance sheet which is really a measure of the printing press you know how much Fed credit is being produced had they grown that at even Milton Friedman's rule of thumb the balance sheet of the Fed today would be 800 billion not 8 trillion so they overshot the mark by 10x in fact when they were at the peak at 9 trillion they overshot the mark by 8 trillion dollars. What happened? Well it flooded into the world market. It forced all the other central banks of the world to print money or otherwise their currencies were going to appreciate too much for their mercantilist view of the world and so the foreign central banks all became Keynesian money printers just like the Greenspan Bank here and that basically got us to the huge mess in the world that we have today. So the question is I would say that right now we're at a juncture we're at a tipping point we're at an inflection point and there is what I call a high noon agenda what really needs to happen and the first thing is if this scenario I've been painting about the 2024 election happens the first thing is we need to revive and this is one of the things I've been talking to Kennedy about a lot the idea of a Fortress America defense budget in policy which happens to resonate because old Joe Kennedy was an advocate for Fortress America and the real articulator of Fortress America was Robert Taft Senator Great Mr. Republican Senator Taft even in the 50s the height of the Cold War he said we protect the mainland we use the great Pacific and Atlantic Ocean moats to secure our territory and we don't get ourselves involved in becoming the global hegemon and bases all over the world and alliances and so forth that was the Fortress America idea and it turns out I didn't even realize this that when John Kennedy wrote his famous book Profiles in Courage some of you have probably come across it over the years or know about it one of the eight profiles in Courage was Robert Taft in John Kennedy's book so I find this pretty interesting because I've talked to Bobby Kennedy a lot about putting together a defense budget based on Fortress America that could actually save a half trillion a year that could cut this 1.3 trillion back to 800 billion or the defense per se proper 900 billion back to 400 billion by getting out of the business that we're in today the global hegemon business who needs 11 carrier aircraft carrier strike groups if you're protecting the shores of the United States you don't need carriers they're sitting ducks anyway the carriers will cost 1 trillion dollars the 11 carrier battle groups with all their escort ships their suite of planes and electronics and all the rest of it will cost 1 trillion over the next decade or 100 billion a year you could dispense with most of that the Army's budget is 2 trillion over the next decade 500 billion a year you could cut it by 2 thirds if you're protecting the shores and the coast and the North American continent and not mucking around in the Middle East and everywhere else in the Far East that we are in today so that's the first point the second point is that you could then couple that with a 500 billion dollar savings in the domestic budgets by going back to the principles of federalism believe it or not even someone like Bobby Kennedy is now beginning to realize that when you pile everything on the wagon and you make, centralize everything and you make Washington put Washington in charge of one size fits all for everything in terms of our domestic economic process in governance you're asking eventually to so over tax the system that you end up with paralysis, failure the fact that we can't even elect a speaker of the house for the first time in our history so you could put that 500 billion on the defense side 500 billion on the domestic side add another 500 billion because the automatic savings of the interest on this massive debt and you could work your way to fiscal balance to fiscal sustainability by the end of the decade that's something that could happen that's something that will take a candidate who says enough of the forever wars enough of the warfare state enough of the global policeman we're going to come back and protect Fortress America only now the second thing we need to do and this is again where I've been able to engage Bobby Kennedy is he doesn't like the fact that Wall Street has made such massive gains and the top 1% has made such enormous asset gains asset value gains since Greenspan took over and so we were talking the other day and I gave him these numbers and he was even shocked if you take the top 1% of the households they had 4 trillion a net worth in 1987 they have 44 trillion a net worth a day so there's been a 40 trillion gain over a period when the GDP only doubled so how do you get 11x gain in the value of securities and net worth when the GDP doubles or maybe triples during that period you don't unless you have a central bank that's drastically continuously and artificially inflating the price of financial assets on the other hand if you take the bottom 50% they had a net worth of 300 billion in 1987 it's only 2 trillion today so one side gained less than 2 trillion the other gained 40 trillion the 1% the 50% he doesn't like that I'm trying to convince him the Fed the Fed is the source of it and I think he's open to that possibility where the mainstream Republicans they're all on board and they don't even think about these monetary issues so that's another opening so if you can get and of course he was very strong and very firm on the COVID lockdowns the mandatory vaccinations and all of that he's understanding because he has been censored by the whole media the whole danger of to free speech, constitutional liberty so if you put constitutional liberty the Fed problem, the fiscal problem the warfare state problem together you can get a program that actually would make sense and that could be supported by the third party candidate who's in the business of blowing up the system it can't come soon enough thank you